ray_parkhurst
08-18-2012, 03:23 PM
When you are holding a coin in-hand, what do you look for? I view coins in several "environments" where the lighting is very different and yet I always look at coins in a similar manner and for similar characteristics:
- Luster
- Color
- Surface marks
- "Rub"
For Luster and Color viewing, I hold the coin such that the light reflects off its surface either straight toward me or slightly off-axis. This is the type of lighting I usually use when taking a photo of a coin, as it shows the coin's color and luster to best advantage. This is the so-called "in-hand look".
The problem is that axial or slightly off-axial lighting does not emphasize the coin's surfaces, and these are especially important for grading. Surface marks often determine the difference between MS grades, but how do you tell if a coin is MS or if it has wear? I usually look for areas of "Rub" by tilting the coin to look at the surfaces at an angle, thus creating a "glancing" effect with the available lighting. But taking photos of a coin at an angle is troublesome since depth of field is not adequate, so only a small portion of the coin is in focus. But in a static "studio" environment like we have on our desks, it's easy to set up the lights to give a similar glancing effect yet keep the coin flat to the camera for uniform focus.
Below is an image of a 1941-D Cent I found while looking through my reject bin. I recently published images of this coin on the General Discussion forum, and the comments were very positive about the coin and the image I created of it. Folks asked why it ended up in the reject bin. But I got to thinking that this coin is actually what I consider a high AU coin, yet the image did not show this well. Why not? Because I lit the coin to emphasize its color and luster, not its surface marks and rub!
To illustrate the point, look at the two images below. First is the obverse image published previously, showing the flattering representation of the coin lit by near-axial lighting. Below that is the obverse image with "glancing" lighting using a single light at 12:00 and at just a few degrees from horizontal. The second image is very different, with strong emphasis on surface finish, marks, and now showing the light rub on the cheek and ear that were difficult to see on top image. And the DUST! It is there in the first image, but simply disappears with near-axial lighting.
This coin would still probably grade MS63BN since the rub is very light, yet this is why it ended up in the reject bin. It just didn't seem obvious from the previous images.
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad273/rparkhurst/IMG_0393_01_01.jpg
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad273/rparkhurst/IMG_0401_01.jpg
- Luster
- Color
- Surface marks
- "Rub"
For Luster and Color viewing, I hold the coin such that the light reflects off its surface either straight toward me or slightly off-axis. This is the type of lighting I usually use when taking a photo of a coin, as it shows the coin's color and luster to best advantage. This is the so-called "in-hand look".
The problem is that axial or slightly off-axial lighting does not emphasize the coin's surfaces, and these are especially important for grading. Surface marks often determine the difference between MS grades, but how do you tell if a coin is MS or if it has wear? I usually look for areas of "Rub" by tilting the coin to look at the surfaces at an angle, thus creating a "glancing" effect with the available lighting. But taking photos of a coin at an angle is troublesome since depth of field is not adequate, so only a small portion of the coin is in focus. But in a static "studio" environment like we have on our desks, it's easy to set up the lights to give a similar glancing effect yet keep the coin flat to the camera for uniform focus.
Below is an image of a 1941-D Cent I found while looking through my reject bin. I recently published images of this coin on the General Discussion forum, and the comments were very positive about the coin and the image I created of it. Folks asked why it ended up in the reject bin. But I got to thinking that this coin is actually what I consider a high AU coin, yet the image did not show this well. Why not? Because I lit the coin to emphasize its color and luster, not its surface marks and rub!
To illustrate the point, look at the two images below. First is the obverse image published previously, showing the flattering representation of the coin lit by near-axial lighting. Below that is the obverse image with "glancing" lighting using a single light at 12:00 and at just a few degrees from horizontal. The second image is very different, with strong emphasis on surface finish, marks, and now showing the light rub on the cheek and ear that were difficult to see on top image. And the DUST! It is there in the first image, but simply disappears with near-axial lighting.
This coin would still probably grade MS63BN since the rub is very light, yet this is why it ended up in the reject bin. It just didn't seem obvious from the previous images.
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad273/rparkhurst/IMG_0393_01_01.jpg
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad273/rparkhurst/IMG_0401_01.jpg